Preference for decision control in organizational decision making

Two studies examined preference for authority or subordinate decision control in dispute resolution and allocation procedures in an organizational setting. In both studies, a marked preference for the authority/subordinate sharing of decision control was found. In Study 1, nearly one third of respondents preferred that subordinates share decision control with supervisors in both dispute and allocation situations; for several of the situations decision sharing was the modal preference. The study also found a tendency to prefer subordinate decision control in disputes but supervisor decision control in allocations. In Study 2, again the most preferred procedure was one in which subordinates shared decision control with their supervisors. The procedure high in decision sharing was rated as the one most fair. It was also rated as more likely to improve relationships among members and to result in the best decision. Some differences in preference for decision control and decision sharing depending upon social factors predominant in the setting were found.     

Penalty notices for disorder: influences on police decision making

This research examined, via a multi-method linked design, the influences over police decision making when disorderly behaviour is being dealt with in the context of a new type of offence disposal, the penalty notice for disorder (PND). The results of a multivariate analysis of the factors predicting the real-life issuance of PNDs to offenders formed the basis of an experiment (using serving police officers as participants) that probed officers’ decision-making processes in disorder scenarios. This approach presents an opportunity to gain insight into how police use the power of arrest when an alternate, less-punitive, option is available.     

Naturalistic decision making in forensic science: toward a better understanding of decision making by forensic team leaders

This study uses the naturalistic decision-making (NDM) perspective to examine how Dutch forensic team leaders (i.e., the officers in charge of criminal forensic research from the crime scene until the use of laboratory assistance) make decisions in real-life settings and identifies the contextual factors that might influence those decisions. First, a focus group interview was conducted to identify four NDM mechanisms in day-to-day forensic decision making. Second, a serious game was conducted to examine the influence of three of these contextual mechanisms. The results uncovered that forensic team leaders (i) were attracted to obtain further information when more information was initially made available, (ii) were likely to devote more attention to emotionally charged cases, and (iii) used not only forensic evidence in the decision making but also tactical, unverified information of the police inquiry. Interestingly, the measured contextual influences did not deviate significantly from a control group of laypeople.     

Medical decision-making for incapacitated elders: A "therapeutic interests" standard

Some older individuals lack sufficient present cognitive and/or emotional ability to make and express autonomous decisions personally. In those situations, health-care providers routinely turn to available formal or informal surrogates who often must apply the best interests standard in making decisions for the incapacitated person. This article contends that defining the best interests standard of surrogate decision-making for older adults in terms of optimal or ideal choices (truly the patient's "best" interests) frequently sets out an unrealizable goal for surrogates to satisfy. Instead, a decision-making standard based on the incapacitated person's "therapeutic" interests is more realistic and hence more honest to adopt and apply from legal, ethical, and medical perspectives.     

An analysis of the relationship between jurors' personal attributes and decision making

Using a survey from a jury simulation study, this study examines the relationship between jurors' personal and social attributes and their decision-making behavior. The hypothesis is examined whether personal attributes and socialization of jurors have any significant effect on their decision-making behavior. The analysis suggests that personal and/or social attributes of jurors have little, if any, impact on their decision-making behavior. Instead, jury instruction and information about the matter appear to be major influence contributors. Additionally, evidence presented during the trial and knowledge of law have significant effects upon how jurors decide cases and give verdicts. Author's Note: Suman Kakar, Ph.D., is associate professor at Florida International University, College of Health and Urban Affairs. She conducts research in the areas of juvenile delinquency, child abuse, family dynamics, minorities, and the prevention of violence. She has published two books,Child Abuse and Delinquency (1996) andCriminal Justice Approaches to Domestic Violence (1998).     

Reconciling Quinlan and Saikewicz: decision making for the terminally ill incompetent

One of the most perplexing problems in the medicolegal field concerns the criteria on which decisions not to treat terminally ill incompetent patients should be made. These decisions traditionally have been made by physicians in hospitals--sometimes with the assistance of the patient's family--on the basis of their perceptions of the patient's "best interests." Recently, two state supreme courts have ruled on this question. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in the Quinlan case, developed a medical prognosis criterion, and permitted the patient's guardian, family, and physicians to apply it with the concurrence of a hospital "ethics committee." The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the Saikewicz case, adopted, on different facts, the test of "substituted judgment" to be applied by a probate court after an adjudicatory hearing. The two cases have been interpreted by many in the medical profession as representing conflicting viewpoints--one supportive of traditional medical decision making and the other distrustful of it. It is the thesis of this Article that Quinlan and Saikewicz are in fundamental agreement and can be reconciled by the next state supreme court that rules on this question. Both courts enunciate a constitutional right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, based on the right to privacy. They agree that incompetents should be afforded the opportunity to exercise this right, and that certain state interests can overcome it. They agree also that physicians should be permitted to make medical judgments, and that societal judgments belong in the courts. The differences in how the opinions are perceived result from the interplay of several factors: the differences in the facts of the cases; the inarticulate use of the term "ethics committee" by the Quinlan court; the literal interpretation of the role of such a committee by the Saikewicz court; a desire for 100 percent immunity on the part of physicians and hospital administrators in Massachusetts; and advice from their counsel on how such immunity can be guaranteed. It is the author's hope that this Article will help to dispel much of the misinformation surrounding these two cases, and to refocus the debate on how decisions should be made for the terminally ill incompetent patient on the real issues regarding criteria and the decision-making process that remain to be resolved.     

Justice and economic decision making: A model of akrasia

Economics has provided the most rigorous model of decision making. Unfortunately, its severe rationality assumptions rule out psychological conflict. Modifying the standard model to allow for conflicting preferences creates scope for hesitation, doubt, regret, and akrasia. Akrasia, which is doing wrong knowingly, figures prominently in discussions of morality and justice in classical philosophy. The development of a formal model of akrasia along the lines taken in this essay holds the promise of combining the mathematical rigor of economics, the analytical power of philosophy, and the empirical methods of psychology in the study of justice.